Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology BLM field offices that had not conducted a competitive sale under FLTFA as of May 31, 2007 (as shown in table 11). From the field offices with no competitive sales, we choose at least one office from each of the ten state offices under FLTFA and we considered the proximity of lands managed by field offices to urban areas. For California, we selected two additional field offices—Palm Springs and Eagle Lake. We chose the Palm Springs Field Office because it planned a major sale during our review and we chose the Eagle Lake Field Office because, although it is located in California, it manages some land in Nevada and has had no competitive sales. Because all of the Nevada field offices have had competitive sales and four Nevada offices were among the high revenue offices selected, we decided to select the Eagle Lake office. To analyze the narrative responses to some of the semistructured interview questions, we used the web-based system to perform content analyses of select open-ended responses. To conduct the content analyses to develop statistics on agreement among the answers, two reviewers per question collaborated on developing content categories based on survey responses and independently assessed and coded each survey response into those categories. Intercoder reliability (agreement) statistics were electronically generated in the coding process, and agreement on all categories were 90 percent or above. Coding disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion. In addition, analyses of the closed-ended responses were produced with statistical software. Table 10: The Seven BLM Field Offices Selected That Have Generated 97 Percent of FLTFA Revenue, as of May 31, 2007 State BLM office Nevada Carson City Field Office Nevada Elko Field Office Nevada Ely Field Office Nevada Las Vegas Field Office New Mexico Las Cruces District Office Oregon Burns District Office Wyoming Rock Springs Field Office Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services revenue data. Page 51 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Table 11: The Eleven BLM Field Offices Selected That Had Not Conducted a Competitive Sale under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007 State BLM office Arizona Lower Sonoran Field Office California Eagle Lake Field Office California El Centro Field Office California Palm Springs Field Office Colorado Grand Junction Field Office Idaho Idaho Falls District Office Montana Lewistown Field Office New Mexico Farmington Field Office Oregon Medford District Office Utah St. George Field Office Wyoming Casper Field Office Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services revenue data and other factors. We also interviewed a range of officials about the land acquisition process. These officials included FLTFA program leads at each agency’s headquarters and selected state or regional-level contacts with each agency, as well as officials from third-party organizations involved with the land acquisition process, such as The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land. We performed our work between November 2006 and February 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Page 52 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management
Page 1 and 2:
GAO February 2008 GAO-08-196 United
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief
Page 5 and 6: Abbreviations BLM Bureau of Land Ma
Page 7 and 8: providing security, and protecting
Page 9 and 10: evenue to acquire specific parcels
Page 11 and 12: BLM faces several challenges to rai
Page 13 and 14: Background Federal Land Sales Autho
Page 15 and 16: Federal Land Acquisition Funding ti
Page 17 and 18: FLTFA Requirements on Use of Revenu
Page 19 and 20: BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue f
Page 21 and 22: Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Y
Page 23 and 24: BLM Faces Several Challenges to Fut
Page 25 and 26: Most BLM States Have Planned FLTFA
Page 27 and 28: Figure 5: BLM “North Fork” 167-
Page 29 and 30: FLTFA’s Restriction on Land Avail
Page 31 and 32: Agencies Have Purchased Few Parcels
Page 33 and 34: Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acqui
Page 35 and 36: Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in t
Page 37 and 38: Agency State Federally designated a
Page 39 and 40: The nomination that was withdrawn b
Page 41 and 42: State-Level Process Has Not Yet Res
Page 43 and 44: BLM Reports Spending $3.2 Million o
Page 45 and 46: Agencies Face Challenges in Complet
Page 47 and 48: Compliance with Specific Provisions
Page 49 and 50: The Agencies Have Yet to Establish
Page 51 and 52: Matters for Congressional Considera
Page 53 and 54: If you or your staff have questions
Page 55: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Page 59 and 60: Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land S
Page 69 and 70: Appendix III: Detailed Information
Page 71 and 72: Appendix III: Detailed Information
Page 73 and 74: Appendix IV: Comments from the Depa
Page 75 and 76: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff A
show all

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?